Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Stark of 4625 45th Street, owner of a salvage yard, spoke <br />against the proposed resolution. He wondered why properties were <br />assessed so differently. <br />Responding to Mr. Stark's questions, Mr. Chastain explained <br />the formulas in detail. He also explained the 150 -foot depth rule <br />and added that certain properties have greater potential for future <br />development, yet each property owner would be paying their fair <br />share. He added that houses which are set back from the road with <br />only a right of ingress/egress would have to petition for <br />connection and be assessed. Mr. Chastain added that a number of <br />those owners had said they wanted to connect -in order to get the <br />water and fire protection. <br />Mr. Stark concluded by saying that the $6,000 assessment for <br />his salvage yard was too much. He thought a poll should be taken <br />because most people did not want the water. <br />Charles Sullivan, Sr., owner -of a junk yard, spoke at length <br />against the resolution because there would be no benefit to his <br />property by having the water line brought in. He felt he spoke on <br />behalf of other property owners in the area as well and that his <br />assessment of $7,000 was too much. He thought the people who <br />wanted it should be charged, but it should not be forced on those <br />who don't want it. <br />Commissioner Bird reasoned there was great potential for <br />industrial development in the area. <br />Hurley Roundtree of 6566 First Street, S.W., grove owner, <br />objected to the privilege of paying $6,000 for a water line he does <br />not need. He plans to keep the property as a grove for a number of <br />years. <br />Charlie Schmidt of 260 Newport Drive spoke against the <br />resolution complaining that he had already been assessed when water <br />was brought to the back side of his property. Now . he was being <br />assessed on the front side. <br />Community Development Director Bob Keating explained <br />development regulations under the subdivision ordinance and <br />explained that if Mr. Schmidt's property was subdivided in the <br />future, water would have to be brought in from both sides of his <br />property. <br />Commissioner Bird warned property owners not to be <br />shortsighted and kill this proposal if they plan to sell or develop <br />their property in the future. <br />Tony Esposito of 4635 45th Street advised that his well water <br />was fine at his salvage yard. He has 8-1/2 acres and a trailer <br />park and can't subdivide the salvage yard and the water will not do <br />45 BOOK 96 PAGE 815 <br />December 19, 1995 <br />